Current Initiatives to Address Heritage Crime in the UK

Notes

• Particularly as incorporated into the manifesto drawn up for the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings of 1877. Although a response to the conservation problems of the nineteenth century, the manifesto extends protection to ‘all times and styles’ and remains to this day the philosophical basis for the Society's work.
   Google Scholar
• Usually as a result of campaigning by the national amenity societies, such as the Victorian Society's agitation over the demolition of the Euston Arch in 1962, but other notable campaigns have been mounted, particularly by the Twentieth Century Society and Save Britain's Heritage.
   Google Scholar
• The maximum penalty per offence in the magistrates' court was £2,000 until increased to £20,000 in September 1991 under the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. No upward revision to these penalties has been made since.
   Google Scholar
• Peter Rost, MP, was successfully prosecuted by Dacorum District Council in 1991 for demolition of a seventeenth-century listed dovecote at Northchurch, Hertfordshire and Teresa Gorman, MP, was successfully prosecuted by Thurrock Borough Council in 1996 for unauthorized and inappropriate alterations to the listed Old Hall Farmhouse, Orsett, Essex.
   Google Scholar
• Data collected continuously since on a volunteered basis, initially in response to an absence of any nationally collected data, and to inform the Thurrock prosecution (see Note 4). Database accessible on: www.ihbc.org.uk/prosecutions.htm
   Google Scholar
• Similarly data on offences related to unauthorized disturbance of archaeological remains and unauthorized felling of protected trees (where occasionally fines have been substantial) remain uncoordinated with no central database from which any trend or policy indicators can be extracted.
   Google Scholar
• In the case of Stelvio House, Newport, Gwent, a Grade II-listed building, the developer McCarthy & Stone pleaded guilty to unauthorized alteration to the building one day after it was spot-listed in what the judge described as ‘a cynical commercial act’, and were fined £200,000. This represented the likely profit of the redevelopment. This is the largest fine known to have been levied in England and Wales.
   Google Scholar
• In a protracted and expensive case brought by Hinckley Borough Council in 1992 against unauthorized alterations at The Old Rectory, Market Bosworth, Leicestershire, the fine was £1,000 but costs awarded against the defendant were £40,000 and they also had to undertake rebuilding works costing £25,000.
   Google Scholar
• An account of the problematic 1980s planning history and describing the indifference of both local planning authority and local amenity society was published by the Devon Buildings Group in July 1991 shortly after the demolition: www.devonbuildingsgroup.org.uk/uploads/documents/Newsletters/Newsletter%2010%20July%201991.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Planning Policy Guidance Note 15 paragraphs 3.42–3.48.
   Google Scholar
• PPG 15 paragraph 3.47, op. cit.
   Google Scholar
• Note 6, op. cit.
   Google Scholar
• Sharp, D., ‘The Greenside case: Another one bites the dust’, Conservation of Modern Architecture, Donhead, Shaftesbury, 2007, pp. 117–30.
   Google Scholar
• The District Council had considered it legitimate for the owner to demolish the building as to refuse to allow this would, wrongly, infringe the owner's statutory human rights.
   Google Scholar
• Unpublished report made available to the author as a supplier of prosecutions data.
   Google Scholar
• Sentencing in the magistrates' court could lead to a fine of up to £20,000 per offence or up to six months’ imprisonment.
   Google Scholar
• Sentencing in the Crown Court could lead to an unlimited fine or up to two years' imprisonment.
   Google Scholar
• The government department had changed its name (and some of its functions) from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) to the (department of) Communities and Local Government between the Greenside case in 2004 and the publication of best practice advice in 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Communities and Local Government, Best Practice Guidance on Listed Building Prosecutions, December 2006.
   Google Scholar
• As relayed to the author.
   Google Scholar
• This goes by a variety of other names; one of the most common in use is ‘night-hawking’ and often involves criminals involved in a wide spectrum of other illegal activities.
   Google Scholar
• Theft of copper cable from beside railway lines since 2005 (in response to the world commodity price) has become so serious that the government has identified metal theft as the second biggest threat to the UK economy after terrorism.
   Google Scholar
• Local action can de defined as including for example, the 450,000 volunteers that the Heritage Alliance estimates are active in the sector, together with the combined membership of 4.5 million members of the National Trust and English Heritage.
   Google Scholar
• East Region of English Heritage (all counties); South East (Kent, East Sussex, West Sussex and Hampshire); South West (Gloucestershire, Wiltshire and Somerset); National Parks (Exmoor, New Forest, Northumberland, Peak District and South Downs.
   Google Scholar
• Note 16, op. cit.
   Google Scholar
• This is another area of proposed training to be rolled out under the ARCH initiative although there are precedents under established procedures for dealing with wildlife crime.
   Google Scholar
• Note 19, op. cit.
   Google Scholar